Lawmakers introduce constitutional amendment to impose term limits on Congress

[GMDino]

I didn't go look up the full proposal but this is something I think most of us can agree on.

https://www.wtae.com/article/lawmakers-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-impose-term-limits-on-congress/25746101?fbclid=IwAR1vAnwAfGljsDtegvBIaKckprC0lLcsf17OKCmjaFCJZMVzThEkBxjc_WY

Quote:Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and Republican Rep. Francis Rooney proposed a constitutional amendment on Thursday that would impose term limits on members of both houses of Congress.


The amendment, co-sponsored by Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and David Perdue (R-Ga.), would restrict senators to two six-year terms and House members to three two-year terms. A similar amendment was proposed by Cruz in January of 2017.

"For too long, members of Congress have abused their power and ignored the will of the American people," Cruz said. "Term limits on members of Congress offer a solution to the brokenness we see in Washington, D.C. It is long past time for Congress to hold itself accountable. I urge my colleagues to submit this constitutional amendment to the states for speedy ratification."


The concept of term limits has gained traction in both parties -- notably, former Democratic Rep. Beto O'Rourke, a potential 2020 hopeful who ran against Cruz for the Senate, has called for term limits for Congress earlier this year.



President Donald Trump has voiced his support for term limits for members of Congress, tweeting in April of last year that he met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers and he endorsed their efforts.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I can get behind this but why do House members only get six years to try and make a difference? Why not limit it to six terms?

I know six terms seems like a lot but it's only 12 years.

[Yojimbo]

(01-04-2019, 03:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: I didn't go look up the full proposal but this is something I think most of us can agree on.

https://www.wtae.com/article/lawmakers-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-impose-term-limits-on-congress/25746101?fbclid=IwAR1vAnwAfGljsDtegvBIaKckprC0lLcsf17OKCmjaFCJZMVzThEkBxjc_WY

That’s great, why aren’t any Democrats co-sponsoring?

[GMDino]

(01-04-2019, 03:07 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I can get behind this but why do House members only get six years to try and make a difference? Why not limit it to six terms?

I know six terms seems like a lot but it's only 12 years.

Good catch.

I'd be good with making it 12 years for both.

[GMDino]

(01-04-2019, 03:26 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: That’s great, why aren’t any Democrats co-sponsoring?

The cynic in me says NEITHER side really wants limits but the GOP is only doing it at a time when they are concerned about losing elections/power so the Democrats won't back it because they are optimistic about winning elections/power.

[Au165]

I'm okay with the idea, but not sure I agree with this structure.

[Yojimbo]

(01-04-2019, 03:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: The cynic in me says EITHER side really wants limits but the GOP is only doing it at a time when they are concerned about losing elections/power so the Democrats won't back it because they are optimistic about winning elections/power.

That makes sense. I was wondering if it had some kind of poison pill section to it.

(01-04-2019, 03:37 PM)Au165 Wrote: I'm okay with the idea, but not sure I agree with this structure.

Same. I think the structure should have one branch of Congress have longer terms than The President and the other shorter. Also, while we are talking term limits via Constitutional amendments, how about we throw the SCOTUS in there too, 10 years, 20 years?

[Benton]

(01-04-2019, 03:26 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: That’s great, why aren’t any Democrats co-sponsoring?

A number of Democrat hopefuls ran on the platform (and some republicans,too) but I'd say this is mostly 'sorry we screwed over the majority of our base after giving ourselves tax cuts, rapidly expanding government spending and wrecking the economy when you gave us the all three branches of government like we asked for.' the midterms weren't some big blue wave, but they were a wake-up call that republicans can't keep running on a platform of limiting federal reach and economic improvements for middle income earners and then doing the exact opposite.

[*bfine32*]

(01-04-2019, 03:07 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I can get behind this but why do House members only get six years to try and make a difference? Why not limit it to six terms?

I know six terms seems like a lot but it's only 12 years.

I'd assume it has something to do with the amount per state.

For instance California has 2 Senators and 53 Congressmen.

As to term limits for elected officials; not a fan. Now members of SCOUTUS that's a different story.

[Belsnickel]

I don't like this. I'm not in favor of congressional term limits for many reasons, but here are 5 good ones:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/01/18/five-reasons-to-oppose-congressional-term-limits/

Also, from the same author (and yes, this is a conservative publication and this is a list from a conservative) focusing on staffers:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/term-limits-for-congressional-staff-10-reasons-its-an-awful-idea

Quote:Here are 10 reasons why the implementation of term limits for congressional staff is a bad idea:

Many staffers are experts in specific issue areas and serve as sources of institutional memory for members (and other staffers). You limit the tenures, you limit the expertise. And when you limit the expertise, you amplify unintended consequences of policy decisions.

Limited experience and expertise means staffers must look elsewhere for information/policy alternatives and guidance on how to do their jobs effectively. Everything we know says they will turn to special interests to fill the information void.

Plus, we already have a special interest/revolving door problem where private firms lure experienced aides to take advantage of their knowledge and connections, turning an internal congressional resource into an external resource.

Working on Capitol Hill isn’t easy — doing so means long hours, high stress, very limited opportunities for advancement, etc. Effectively defining how long they can stay will make recruiting talent to Congress even more difficult.

We already have a staff turnover problem (see: limited pay) where a Capitol Hill "veteran" is defined as someone who has been there for more than five years. In what other profession does limited experience lead to more effective, efficient outcomes?

The government is YUGE! It takes time to learn policies, develop networks for coalitions, identify key players, let alone know who to call to help constituents with passport and Social Security problems. Limits would render members less efficient at constituent service, too.

Staff give rank-and-file lawmakers a better shot at being involved in policy creation. Limited staff tenures would consolidate decision-making power (even more, if possible) to those with institutional privileges (committee chairs and party leaders).

Experienced aides better know how to conduct congressional oversight, a key role of the First Branch. New aides will be far less familiar in executing agency information requests, conducting investigations, etc.

Staff term limits would exacerbate congressional deference to federal agencies. Novice aides won’t have the issue knowledge or experience to assist members in pulling back policy decisions presently carried out by bureaucrats.

We are likely to witness an infusion of new members after the 2018 midterms who will arrive with no experience working within a more functional Congress. Limiting staff tenures will mean limiting those who have the historical perspective to guide us back to more civil, productive times.

[Benton]

(01-04-2019, 05:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't like this. I'm not in favor of congressional term limits for many reasons, but here are 5 good ones:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/01/18/five-reasons-to-oppose-congressional-term-limits/

Also, from the same author (and yes, this is a conservative publication and this is a list from a conservative) focusing on staffers:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/term-limits-for-congressional-staff-10-reasons-its-an-awful-idea

I haven't read the proposed legislation, but does this actually limit staff retention? Or is that just the (admittedly likely) fear?

[Belsnickel]

(01-04-2019, 05:17 PM)Benton Wrote: I haven't read the proposed legislation, but does this actually limit staff retention? Or is that just the (admittedly likely) fear?

No, the amendment only address elected members of Congress. Some of the concerns with staff members, though, would be shared with elected members.

[Benton]

(01-04-2019, 05:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, the amendment only address elected members of Congress. Some of the concerns with staff members, though, would be shared with elected members.

Well then it may not be much of an issue. Staff provide much (most?) Of the data that goes into decisions. May not be anything changes. Or maybe we start getting better staffers and better legislation. 

[Belsnickel]

(01-04-2019, 05:43 PM)Benton Wrote: Well then it may not be much of an issue. Staff provide much (most?) Of the data that goes into decisions. May not be anything changes. Or maybe we start getting better staffers and better legislation. 

Actually, the influence of staff on the policy decisions has been decreasing over time. Since about the '70s, we have seen members of Congress push higher and higher proportions of their staff to their local offices, leaving a vacuum of information in Washington. This vacuum has become filled with lobbyists as they write legislation for the elected members and provide them with information to sway them. By limiting the terms of Representatives and Senators, then there is going to be even more reliance on these outside sources of influence as the members will lack the expertise as well.

[BmorePat87]

Copied from a post I made against term limits in 2016

Quote:I am against limits, and here is why.

So when I look at what is wrong with Congress, I have to ask if term limits is an issue would term limits fix congress? The only conclusion I can come to is they would hurt it even more, and here's why: The legislative branch is easily our most complicated branch, and it was designed for day to day operations that run on long standing traditions and the maneuvering of legislators to get things done is dependent on existing coalitions, knowledge of obscure rules, and quid pro quo.

currently the problems I see are:
1) Gerrymandering has resulted in the most partisan candidates getting elected
2) The electorate are truly uneducated on their candidates

the seniority system in Congress is extremely important, especially for committees where most legislation is filtered. You jeopardize having truly knowledgable and experienced law makers if you limit how long they can stay in Congress. Most Congressman are lawyers or have law backgrounds and that will never change. They understand the law and the Constitution, they're who should be making laws
but they're not going to be experts in all fields, so having them stay on committees for long periods of time keep them knowledgable
it also means the support staff, which is crucial, remains, and good advisors stay on to advise them

Pass a gerrymandering amendment requiring all districts to go through a bi or non partisan committee that can be vetoed on the ballot by the people via referendum. you'll have more moderate candidates and districts won't inherently be bastions for their parties.
you then need to have some system of getting more information out to voters
whether that's a law mandating progress reports of sorts or online reporting to constituents, the people need to know what their candidate is doing. Congress is unpopular, but incumbents get reelected nearly 90% of the time because people believe their guy is doing a good job but everyone else sucks

it might also mean public financing to remove outside money. Groups from across the country will fight for or against candidates in hotly contested districts.


another proposal is recesses for the purposes of giving representatives time to go home and work in the community. Like office hours but for members of Congress

If the reason for term limits is to prevent Congressmen from getting too comfortable and just working for themselves, I'm going to suggest that the result will be inexperienced lawmakers who will be more focused on getting their cut than building long term coalitions since their time is limited

[Mike M (the other one)]

I am for term limits, and I understand why people are against it.
We have to figure out what's best and roll with it. We know that the current mess isn't working, and honestly, I think more would get done if people weren't so worried about re-elections all the time.

[Belsnickel]

(01-04-2019, 06:22 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I am for term limits, and I understand why people are against it.
We have to figure out what's best and roll with it. We know that the current mess isn't working, and honestly, I think more would get done if people weren't so worried about re-elections all the time.

This is why I am personally for publicly funded congressional elections. So much of the time of a member of Congress is spent fundraising and trying to please donors, that this move, alone, could result in a more effective legislature. I have a lot of reforms I would put in place for our legislative system, but term limits is not one I support.

[kdgjr]

(01-04-2019, 06:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Copied from a post I made against term limits in 2016

100% agree about Gerrymandering. I believe it is the #1 problem. The lines have been drawn up so that incumbency is practically inevitable.

Draw the maps up independently and term limits maybe don't become as necessary.

[Millhouse]

I'm opposed to term limits for Congress because I am against any law that fundamentally at it's core is about not trusting the American people to vote who they want in office. Fix and improve the laws that make the process a fair and open field instead.

[Benton]

(01-04-2019, 05:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, the influence of staff on the policy decisions has been decreasing over time. Since about the '70s, we have seen members of Congress push higher and higher proportions of their staff to their local offices, leaving a vacuum of information in Washington. This vacuum has become filled with lobbyists as they write legislation for the elected members and provide them with information to sway them. By limiting the terms of Representatives and Senators, then there is going to be even more reliance on these outside sources of influence as the members will lack the expertise as well.

So less washington staffs is resulting in more lawmakers who know more and screw stuff up more often than not... But we need to keep those guys because ... Well... We might wind up With lawmakers who screw stuff more often than not?

Go on, pull the other one.